tldraw-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates properties, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if updates affect other shapes), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update properties') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by succinctly conveying the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, and doesn't leverage sibling context to clarify usage, leaving the agent under-informed for effective tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions 'properties' but doesn't specify which ones, while the input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing all 8 parameters (e.g., 'id', 'x', 'color'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal value beyond implying updatable properties, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('properties of an existing shape'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'create_shape' or 'delete_shapes' beyond the basic action, missing specific distinctions about what properties can be updated versus created.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., shape must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update non-existent shapes), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_shape' for new shapes or 'delete_shapes' for removal, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.